Abortion is big business. According to an article in Forbes Magazine, February 13, 2006, p.76, 24% of U.S. pregnancies end in abortion, and 70% of Russian pregnancies do. (Michael Freedman "Family Planning : Fertile Ground")

First recognize that many people do not care what the Bible says about abortion. They do not care what is right or wrong. They only want what they want. But this is written for those who want to know God's will.

There are two abortion perspectives: private and public. What do you think about a politician's statement, "I would never have an abortion... but I wouldn't stop anyone else."? What if it was murder?

What about freedom? My freedom to swing my arm ends where your nose begins. If 1) a fetus is a human life, and 2) mothers must care for unborn babies, then a child's right to live supersedes a mother's freedom to choose to kill. If 1) or 2) is false, then maybe it is OK to kill a fetus like some people kill dolphins.

You often can read into the Bible what you like (isogesis) or take seriously what God says and likes (exegesis). Study Exodus 21:22-25 carefully.

There are more fundamental reasons to be pro-life. The worth of a person is not determined by his value to society or parents' views. All humans have this dignity given by God, though men try to deny it.

Making a baby is a continuous process; we cannot draw a line. As we declare some of the human species "non-people", we do inhuman things. Today doctors even experiment with aborted babies. When aborted babies come out alive, doctors have killed them.

If abortion is permitted to continue, the evil is done not only to the babies but to ourselves. As we turn ourselves into monsters, the Canaanites of old live again.

Most (but not all) arguments for abortion can be used equally well to justify killing babies one day before birth. We can call these "Canaanite arguments."

Fetal experiments and tissue may help treat people. If infants also helped, would killing babies be OK?

The Bible never specifically prohibits abortion. The Bible never explicitly prohibits chainsaw massacres of babies either. If unborn babies are people, then the sixth commandment covers abortion too.

We should not make secular laws about things in a religious book.

Theft, rape, and murder are in the Bible too, but that does not mean we cannot make laws about those. Even many atheists can agree the theft, rape, and murder are wrong.

N.A.R.A.L. (National Abortion Rights Action League) estimated that prior to Roe vs. Wade there were 5,000 to 10,000 deaths per year. Legalization moved abortions from "back-street butchers" to licenses physicians.

According to former abortion doctor Bernard Nathanson, he knew that these figures were a lie. In 1971 the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics reported only 39 women died from abortions, not thousands.

Second, 84-87% of illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicans according to Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey in the Americal Journal of Public Health.

Third, the argument assumes that unborn babies are not people. Everyone should agree that economics and convenience would not justify killing babies.

If abortion were illegal, many women would do it anyway.

Some people still kill infants though it is illegal. For this reason should we make infant killing legal too?

If abortion were illegal, rich women would still have it done in other countries, and it would be unfair to poor women.

First many women would not have it if it were deemed illegal. More importantly, if killing a baby were legal by traveling to another country, or for a price, would this justify giving everyone the right to kill their babies in our country?

Having the baby can be an economic hardship.

Raising a baby can be also, but that does not justify killing it. Furthermore, there is a shortage of healthy babies to adopt in the United States.

Abortion should be justified if the baby would be known to be physically or mentally handicapped (or some would say the wrong sex).

Would killing a child be justified if the child became physically or mentally handicapped? Suicide rates of handicapped people are lower than healthy people, and most of them are glad that they are alive.

Many fetuses naturally die before birth.

Many babies naturally die after birth too, but does that justify actively killing a baby?

Why should men decide what women can do with their bodies?

Killing a baby both after and before a natural delivery is wrong (or right) regardless of the sex of a person talking about it. But if is not just an excuse but a real objection, it was nine men who legalized abortion. There are plenty of women who are pro-life. Finally, many abortionists argue assuming what they are trying to prove, that unborn babies are not humans. But if you assume the opposite, then over 1 million people in America today die from abortions every year, and almost 50% of them are males.

Isa 43:1-7, Rev 3:5 and Lk 10:20 say that God calls believers by name. Before we have a name then (at birth) perhaps then we are not people. Some cultures do not name infants until well after they are born. Is it ok for them to kill unnamed infants?

Pro-life people think pregnant women should have less freedom than other people. Due to their chosen responsibilities, mothers and fathers have less freedom too.

In Gen 2:7 God breathed into Adam the breath of life. So we are people when we first breathe. This was only for the first man.

Since many are not sure when human personhood begins, it is questionable that killing an early term fetus is murder.

If one were paid to demolish a building, it is be morally justified to do so if there were a 50% chance a child might still be inside it? A 10% chance? A 5% chance?

The 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision said a state could not prohibit abortion in the first six months, or even after that if it would impair the mother’s physical or mental health.

However, physical and mental health were so broadly defined in the subsequent Doe vs. Bolton (1973) decision, that former Chief Justice Warren Burger (who voted for the majority in Roe vs. Wade) admitted that we have abortion available on demand (Thornburg vs. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (1986).

At one time the early Egyptians' penalty for adultery was death. If the woman got pregnant they first waited for the child to be born. In the Old Testament adulterous women were executed with their unborn babies, so this was all OK. Even this argument does nothing to justify late-term abortions. While this may appear to justify early term abortion or "morning-after" pills, executions in general are not murder in the Old Testament.

Since a creature's life is in the blood (Gen 9:4 Lev 17:11,14 Deut 12:23), and blood cells form 20 days after conception, before then abortion may be OK.

1 Cor 15:46 says, "However, the spiritual is not first but the natural; then the spiritual." This refers to salvation, not gestation. Non-Christians are not non-humans!

In 1980 only 113,500 out of 1.5 million abortions (9%) were in the 4th through 9th months. Since neurological structures are not developed until 13 ˝ weeks (over 3 months) more than 91% were before the fetus could feel pain. First the nerves are partially developed starting at 2 months, brain waves at 2 ˝ months, and 480,000 abortions (33%) of all abortions in 1980 were between the 8th and 13th week. Second, even if personhood were defined by some as feeling pain, 9% to 42% is too many painful deaths. They have seen the baby’s grimace as it is getting dismembered, and how the baby moves to try to avoid the deadly tube suctioning up it body parts piece by piece.

Withdrawing the support a fetus requires is not murder. Abortion is often painful killing by salt poisoning, vacuum, or by knife. At only 13 ˝ weeks unborn babies show aversive response to needles, and grimace when deadly salt solution is injected.

Before abortion was legalized, desperate woman died after giving themselves abortions with coat-hangers. There are more deaths today from the many women seeking abortions than there were before abortion was legalized.

Consider the situation in old times where the doctor had to choose between saving the mother and saving the infant. For anyone who believes either that the mother should be saved first or that the mother should choose, they have to admit they place a relative value on human life at least some of the time. Otherwise they would just flip a coin. If a slightly lesser value can be placed on an infant, then certainly a much less value can be placed on cells with no blood, heart, or brain.

God left it up to us whether we want to hear what suits our desires (2 Tim 4:3) or to seek out what pleases the Lord (Eph 5:10).

Ecclesiastes 11:5 shows that we do not know how the body is formed in the mother's womb. So it is presumptuous to think life begins at conception. It is presumptuous to think life does not begin at conception. Some pro-abortionists even will not call a fetus a human. If it is not a human, what is it, a cat?

Ps 139:16 all the days written ...

Ps 139:13,16 if being weaved then not human yet

Ps 51:5 "Behold I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me."

While our other videos answer pro-abortion arguments, this video covers a different though related topic: how YOU can answer pro-abortion arguments. Maybe you have not done scholarly research on all the ins and outs of all the arguments, but using what is in this video, you can easily answer most of them anyway. Before we jump to how you can easily answer most arguments, let’s first take a sidetrack and understand the types of pro-choice people.

Morally, people can be classified into three broad categories.

"By the end of the second trimester the ‘brain’s neural circuits are as advance as a newborn’s.’ Begley, Do You Hear? p.14 (Why Pro-Life? P.50)

"Of course, an infant is not fully human…. I have little sympathy with the idea that infanticide is just another form of murder. Persons who are already functionally persons in the full sense have more important rights even than infants." Dr. Charles Hartshorne Univ. of Texas "Concerning Abortion: An Attempt at a Rational View" The Christian Century 21 January 1981, 42-45.

Susan B. Anthony, champion of women’s suffrage (voting rights) wrote, "I deplore the horrible crime of child murder…. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed." The Revolution, July 8, 1869 p.4

It was not until the 1970’s that feminists embraced abortion.

Outside of America, the vast majority of abortions are of girls. Who Pro-Life? p.59

Amoral: Their personal happiness/goals are the primary good. They really do not care if something is moral or not. A few might even argue that it is "species-ism" to think that a roach should have fewer right than a person, (especially of certain ethnic groups). If they can make lots of money aborting babies, then fine. If they could make lots of money killing infants and adults that would be equally fine. Their conscience is dead, as though seared with a hot iron.

You might be thinking it fortunate that there are few people like this, but you would be wrong. Hitler did not personally kill 6 million Jews, 10’s of thousands of Nazis did. Mao and his wife did not personally kill 10 million Chinese, a vast number of people were involved. The Khmer Rouge, Idi Amin’s soldiers, etc. did not have sophisticated moral arguments trying to justify what they did; they probably viewed not just moral arguments, but morals in general as just a waste of time.

Many, though not all, atheists can fit comfortably in this group. If morality is just an evolutionary mechanism, why would you do what is right, if it did not benefit you and nobody was looking. When people are looking, they might still support a moral cause, for the good of society, sort of like giving a couple of dollars to your high school team’s booster club.

By the book: On the other end are people who ground their morality in one or more books. This includes Bible-believing Christians, such as ourselves, as well as conservative Jewish people, Confucianists, Theravada Buddhists, and conservative Muslims. All books are not the same though. A Jew or Christian could logically look at the Bible and conclude that rape is always wrong, but a Muslim looking at the Qur’an and hadiths could conclude that forced sex with captives and slave girls they were not married to was OK. See www.MuslimHope.com/WomenInIslam.htm for ample documentation of that.

If it feels right: But don’t be mistaken in thinking that these are the only two categories. There is a third category of people who have an operating conscience, genuinely want to do what is right (at least some of the time), but believe a relative "rightness" can be arrived at without moral absolutes. Some of these know they do not have a consistent moral basis, or perhaps have even given up hope of having a consistent moral basis. Others try to develop a consistent morality, but they have no ground on which to base their morality. A poll a few years ago found that 26% of Americans were strongly pro-choice, 29% were strongly pro-life, and the other 45% were not strongly either one. (Why Pro-Choice? p.16) This middle ground includes many people from all three groups.

Total pro-life or total pro-choice are not the only views though. Many people can be thought of as partially pro-life and partially pro-choice. They believe in pro-life after a certain point, except perhaps in the case of rape or incest.

There is overlap between the categories. Even people who are amoral on many things might draw the line at some things. For example, amoral people might think ripping the limbs off of adults or children they can see is repulsive, but ripping the limbs off of unborn babies to kill them, with no anesthetic is fine.

Even people who go by a book will rely on inductive reasoning to generalize and deductive reasoning to apply the clearer things their book says to situations not explicitly mentioned in the book. Christians call this applying scripture, and Muslims have schools of ijtihad.

When Christians discuss abortion with non-Christians, they are venturing off of the solid ground of moral absolutes to the swamp of morality based on feelings and conscience. While it is perfectly fine (and honest) to say you believe pro-life based on the precepts taught Exodus 21:22-23; Psalm 139:15-16; Luke 1:44, etc.) you have to recognize that this argument might not carry much weight for an atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, or someone of another faith.

So we can show why their arguments are generally inconsistent with their own morality, and why a pro-life position is the only consistent position, even without scriptural grounding. Ultimately though, we cannot help them find any good, absolute basis for write and wrong, except for God’s word.

Almost all pro-abortion arguments can be put in four categories:

It’s not a human arguments

Pro-infanticide arguments

"Drawing the line" arguments

Responsibility of the mother arguments

We discussed these in detail in the "Answering Abortion Arguments" video, but here is a brief recap.

It’s not a human: This is the silliest argument. The DNA is not cat or dog, it is human. Its not just human like an arm or leg is human, but a human being, with only half the genetic code of its mother. It is not just a part of the mother, unless the mother can be said to have four arms, four legs, two sets of genitals, and two brains and two faces. Speaking of faces and brains, the fetus’ face, not the mother, is contorted in agony when saline solution puts it in death agony, and the fetus’ brain, not the mother’s brain is crunched by forceps. If a 100% Swahili embryo is implanted in a Portuguese woman, the baby born is 0% Portuguese and 100% Swahili. Even a test tube baby is 0% "testtube-ish".

Pro-Infanticide: Probably most pro-abortion arguments (what if the child is not desired, the baby is not self-sufficient, etc.) applied to babies before they are born, could equally be applied to infants after they are born. If a mother does not have the right to kill her child 5 minutes after a natural birth, why should it not be equally wrong to kill the child 5 minutes before a natural birth. If not having an abortion and giving up the child for adoption causes some economic hardship, that is much less than raising a child after it is born. Etc.

Drawing the line: Here are various lines:

Breathing air: Labor can be induced prematurely and a healthy baby born

Viability: Used in the Roe v. Wade case, viability has been pushed back.

Feeling pain: This is not known for sure, but somewhere between the 20th and 42nd day.

There are only four real differences between an infant and a fetus, which others have abbreviated as SLED. Size, Level of development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency.

Even a 42-day old fetus has not only a brain and nervous system, capable of feeling pain, but everything else as well. Most people feel it is morally wrong to rip off the limbs of living puppies and kittens, with no anesthetic. Even if someone thought a fetus of X weeks was not human, should not the fetus at least have anesthetic, or the same dignity as a puppy or kitten?

Mother’s Responsibility: Mother’s have the responsibility to not destroy the human being naturally developing in her. (Minnesota)

A pregnant woman is not making an informed choice if she is not told the following:

Mothers not generally told that it is more risky. Malformations and early deaths of children in subsequent pregnancies is much greater. S. Linn "The Relationship Between Induced Abortion and Outcome of Subsequent Pregnancies." American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology May 15, 1983, p.136-140. John A. Richardson and Geoggrey Dixon, "Effects of Legal Termination on Subsequent Pregnancy" British Medical Journal 1976 p.1303-1304. Why Pro-Life? P.13B. Lake, Every Pregnant Woman’s Guide to Preventing Premature Birth (New Your: Times Books, 1995); E. Ring-Cassidy, Women’s health After Abortion (Toronto: de Veber Institute, 2002). 50 to 300% increase of risk of breast cancer after an abortion. P.71 Brinton LA, Hoover R., Fraumeni IF, Ir. (1983) British Journal of Cancer 47 p.757-762.

Frank Beckwith’s book

Roe v. Wade only after the 24th week if "there is a substantial risk that the continuance of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the patient or would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the patient."

Doe v. Bolton (1973) health must be taken in its broadest possible context, and must be defined "in light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age-relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors relate to health." Politically Correct Death p.32

Former chief justice Warren Burger in his dissent in Thornburg v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (1986) "We have apparently already passed the point at which abortion is available merely on demand …. The point at which these [state] interests become ‘compelling’ under Roe is at viability of the fetus. … Today, however, the Court abandons that standard and renders the solemnly stated concerns of the 1973 Roe opinion for the interests of the States mere shallow rhetoric."

"Abortion-on-demand after the first six or seven months of fetal existence has been effect by the Court through its denial of personhood to the viable fetus, on the one hand, and through its broad definition of health, on the other." (Judge John T. Noonan, Jr., Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, San Francisco) p.33

p.33 9% of abortions late term

p.35 No late term in Missouri

"From the eighteenth day after conception substantial development of the brain and nervous system occurs. Krason points out, ‘This is necessary because the nervous system integrates the action of all the other systems. By the end of the twentieth day the foundation of the child’s brain, spinal cord, and entire nervous system will have been established.’" p.44 Krason, Stephen M. Abortion: Politics, Morality, and the Constitution. Lanham, Md: University Press of America, 1984 p.341

"the unborn is able to feel pain – the requisite neurological structures begin developing at eight weeks after conception and are completely in place as well as functioning by thirteen and a half weeks, as evidence by the aversive response of the human fetus to needles and other sharp instruments as well as pain causing substances such as saline." Politically Correct Death p.49-50.

8 ˝ weeks "Eyelids and palms of hand sensitive to touch. If eyelid is stroked, child squirms. If palm is stroked, fingers close into a small first." Politically Correct Death p.50

10 weeks "Threefold increase in nerve-muscle connections. If forehead is touched, he can turn his head away." P.50

33% of abortions between the 8th and 14 week. P.48

Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist:

"How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In N.A.R.A.L. [National Abortion Rights Action League] we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always "5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year." I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think about it. But in the "morality" of the revolution it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics. The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason had to be done was permissible."

"as evidenced by the aversive response of the human fetus, it may be concluded with reasonable medical certainty that the fetus can sense pain at least by 13 ˝ weeks.’ But since ‘the neurological structures are at least partially in place between 8 and 13 ˝ weeks, it seems probable that some pain can also be felt during this time of gestation." Collins, Vincent J., Stephen R. Zielinski, and Thomas J. Marzen. Fetal Pain and Abortion, Studies in Law and Medicine no.18 Chicago: Americans United for Life Legal Defense Fund. 1984. p.8 (Politically Correct Death p.48)

Saline abortion burns away the layers of the skin, as well as the esophagus and mouth.

"It is well-known that the fetus reacts with aversive responses when saline is introduced into amniotic fluid,’ as evidence by the chilling fact that the ‘aborting mother can feel her baby thrashing in the uterus during the approximately two hours it usually takes for the saline solution to kill the fetus.’;" ibid p.8 (Politically Correct Death p.48)

21% of abortions in the 8th week, and 46% later.

In 1980 (1.5 million abortions) 9% of abortions late term (after the 13th week) p.48 Politically Correct Death

24,000 saline abortions p.48 Politically Correct Death

33% of abortions after the 8th and before 13 week (usually by suction). p.48

More women than men are pro-life according to most polls. The most pro-choice are white males ages. Around the world it is mainly girls that are aborted. 20-49 Why Pro-Life? P.59

At least 49 different studies have shown a statistically significant increase in premature births or low birth weight in women who had abortions before. Also the odds of malformation in subsequent children are increased by abortion. P.69

Ectopic pregnancies are responsible for 12% of pregnancy-related deaths. Increase of 500% of ectopic pregnancies. P.69

Risk of death to the mother from abortion is 2.95 time higher than death from pregnancies carried to term. Gissler M, Berg C, Bouvier-Colle MH, Buekens P., "Pregnancy-Associated Mortality After Birth, Spontaneous Abortion or Induced Abortion in Finland, 1987-2000" American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Why Pro-Life? P.73